PASUMARTHY PRABHAKAR RAO Vs. STATE OF AP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal is filed by the two accused who are convicted and sentenced by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kothagudem in Sessions Case No. 97 of 1989. The Sessions Judge, by his judgment dated 28th May. 1990 convicted A.1 and A.2, the husband and the mother -in -law of the deceased Seetharatnam for offences under Sections 498 -A and 306 I.P.C. A.1 and A.2 were sentenced to suffer R.I. for two years for the offence under Section 498 -A A.I.P.C. For the offence under Section 306 I.P.C, A.1 was sentenced to suffer R.1 for a period of five years, A.2, on the ground that she is a female, was sentenced to suffer R.1 for a period of three years for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. Both the sentences to run concurrently. The Sessions Judge actually framed the first charge for the offence under Section 498 -A I.P.C. The second charge was framed for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. Alternatively under the second charge he framed a charge for the offence under Section 304 -B I.P.C. In the judgment, the learned Sessions Judge discussed the entire evidence elaborately, recorded his findings with regard to six points for consideration framed by him in para 6 of the judgment. Point No. 4 deals with the alternative charge under Section 304 -B I.P.C. The learned Judge recorded his findings on the various points for consideration as follows :

(2.) On the first point he held that Seetharathnam committed suicide by drowning herself in the well. On the second point, he held that the evidence establishes beyond doubt that A.1 and A.2 used to harass and subject Seetharatnam to cruelty on the ground that she was barren and that the dowry brought by her was inadequate and meagre. He also observed that it is established beyond any element of reasonable doubt that A.1 and A.2 harassed Seetharathnam and subjected her to cruelty for a number of years until her death with demands to bring more money from her parents. They harassed, teased, taunted and tormented her for being childless. They used to call her a barren woman time and again and they also threatened that A.1 would desert her and re -marry to beget children. All these facts amount to mental cruelty and harassment. On Point No. 3, the Court recorded its findings as follows :

(3.) On Point No. 4, it held that the death of Seetharatnam has occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances within a period of seven years of their marriage. On Point No. 5, he came to the conclusion that the presumption under Section 113 -A of the Evidence Act applies and that Seetharathnam committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that the accused failed to rebut the presumption raised under Section 113 -A of the Evidence Act. On Point No. 6, he recorded a finding to the effect that the prosecution succeeded in establishing the guilty of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence under Section 498 -A I.P.C. and for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. The Judge did not record any finding as to whether the ingredients of the alternative charge under Section 304 -B I.P.C. are established. In the concluding paragraphs, he never dealt with the alternative charge. He never recorded a finding as to whether the accused are liable to be acquitted for the alternative charge under Section 304 -B I.P.C. Aggrieved by the judgment and sentences, the present appeal is filed.